How to build China's confidence?

It is easier to run a university by learning foreign things, but it is more difficult to stick to your own characteristics. Last spring, Tsinghua University celebrated its centenary birthday with great fanfare. I was invited to write a short essay, but my singing was basically the opposite. The general idea of this article is that "going international" does not necessarily mean "going first-class". There is indeed some connection between the two, but they are by no means synchronous and sometimes even irrelevant. After more than 30 years of reform and opening up, if we talk about independence and self-confidence, the academic circles in China have not made progress, but are still going backwards.

Have we gone too far because of the pursuit of perfection, or even lost our position and foundation?

In my humble opinion, a major feature of universities is that they need "grounding gas" and cannot introduce complete sets of equipment like factories; Even if the assembly is successfully introduced, it is easy to have problems every once in a while. Because of this, I am worried about the overwhelming and unquestionable discussion of "internationalization". For example, the following slogans, in my opinion, belong to the misunderstanding and need to be clarified.

The first misunderstanding: running a university is to "connect with the international community". However, there is not only one model for foreign famous schools, so what kind of "track" should be used and how to "connect"? Of course, it is possible and necessary to study hard; But the theory of "integration" is wrong. The president of a university presided over a conference of sinologists and said, "We should also run a first-class sinology department". I thought it was ridiculous when I first heard this-how can domestic language and literature research be the same as foreign language and literature research! However, the ugly "misunderstanding" of the president reveals a terrible fact: today's China University is copying the appearance of American universities step by step. For example, almost all universities in China are rewarding papers published in English, science is superstitious about SCI, and liberal arts advocate SSCI or A &；; When HCI hires professors, especially those from famous universities in Europe and America; As for educational administrators, they are open to Harvard and closed to Yale.

The second misunderstanding: running a university means "joining forces with the strong". It is said that the best way to build a "world-class university" is to join forces; Because, all kinds of figures went up at once. Fortunately, Peking University and Tsinghua did not merge. There are good and bad university mergers, but "strong" is difficult to "join hands"; Must be "off", must leave a lot of sequelae. Excessive internal friction causes the merged "big university" to need 10 years and 20 years to adjust its digestion. If necessary, it is feasible to merge the strong and weak. Because universities need to have a dominant style, if they are merged, nothing can be argued well and nothing can be modest.

The third misunderstanding: running a university is to "learn from each other's strengths." Running a university really can't be king behind closed doors. We should strive to broaden our horizons and learn from many aspects, not only from famous foreign universities, but also from domestic brother universities. Just because of various evaluations and rankings, this process of "learning from each other's strengths to make up for each other's shortcomings" unconsciously evolved into what was missing (major) and what was supplemented (major), which eventually led to the demise of its own characteristics. Not to mention the colorful foreign famous schools. Compared with Peking University, Normal University, Tsinghua, Yanjing, Fu Jen and Concord University in the 1930s (taking Beijing as an example only), most of today's China universities are too vague-the differences between schools are only in "level", "scale" and "funds". What is worrying is that this general trend of "integration" continues.

The fourth misunderstanding: running a university is to strive to "adapt to the needs of the market." It is understandable that students choose their majors blindly; What is even more frightening is that the government lacks foresight. In my opinion, whether it is going in or out, we should consider the needs of the country-whatever the market can solve, don't add icing on the cake. Every year, international students get scholarships from China government and enter business schools or law schools with good employment prospects. This really shouldn't be. The same is true in Europe and America. Government or university scholarships are not used to reward the choice of popular majors, but to adjust social needs. If you study ancient Greek philosophy or literature, the employment prospect is not very good, but it is essential to the whole human civilization, so I will reward you. Similarly, international students who are sent out with state funds should also have professional requirements.

The fifth misunderstanding: running a university means signing cooperation agreements with famous foreign universities. With all due respect, many agreements are empty promises, and many agreements were put on hold soon after they were signed. All "cooperation" must be implemented in departments and colleges, which will be more reliable; The most affordable is the "exchange student". But there is a premise that it must be supported by economic strength. The Chinese Department of Peking University is reserved and does not sign such bilateral agreements easily: First, it is confident and willing to keep its own foundation, and does not like those who deliberately belittle themselves to please foreign professors; Second, if there is no scholarship, students can study abroad for about a year at their own expense, which is impossible for poor children and easy to cause comparisons between classmates.

As a professor of Chinese Department, I have to demonstrate repeatedly that the direction, approach and effect of "internationalization" of different disciplines are different in the face of the vast tide of studying abroad. The evaluation standard of natural science is close to the whole world, and scholars are pursuing the Nobel Prize in Physical Chemistry. Social science is inferior, but its academic interests, theoretical models and research methods are similar. The most troublesome thing is the humanities, each with its own set. All the discourses are closely related to their own historical and cultural traditions, even "one side of the soil and water", which is difficult to give up completely. The literature major of humanities should be the most difficult to "integrate" because it has a deep dependence on the "language" used by each.

Therefore, the "disconnection" and "alienation" of literary researchers are not necessarily our problems. We must follow the example of American universities and use other people's language and evaluation criteria to regulate our behavior. Even after some efforts and applause, we should ask ourselves: Have we gone too far and even lost our position and foundation?

"The purpose of studying abroad is to create a new civilization for our country."

Tell a few short stories, and you can understand the current situation in China and my mood.

10 years ago, I taught at Taiwan Province Provincial University and recommended a graduate of Chinese Department to Peking University for postgraduate study. Students came excitedly, but "went home" a month later; Asked why, the answer is: "I was very excited when I first arrived at Peking University. Walking in the morning, the books by the unnamed lake sound very loud; " But listen carefully, why is it all in English? I might as well go to America to learn English. "

Three years ago, a southern university made up its mind to catch up and asked me to help find a foreign professor. It is said that the treatment is very generous. At first, I was worried. I think this is a good thing and should be done. But the private words made my heart cool-"It is best not to be a China native, but to be a foreign scholar." This is not picking scholars, this is clearly choosing actors, so we value "camera sense" so much.

Two years ago, the doctor I directed applied for a teaching position in a prestigious school, and the answer was: according to the unified regulations of the school, only those who have obtained doctoral degrees in foreign universities can join the post directly, and doctors trained in domestic universities can only be postdocs, no matter how good they are. The doctoral students who graduated this year, because they have studied at Harvard University for three months, are always asked what "real classics" they have learned from Professor XXX at Harvard. The students are very honest, saying that they only talked twice, which adds up to less than three hours. Why don't you care about studying hard at Peking University for four years and focus on "visiting the school" like a dragonfly?

This is not a problem of three or five people, but a problem of the whole social atmosphere. I remember that we once laughed at the higher education in Taiwan Province Province: "Come, come to National Taiwan University; Go, go to the United States "; Once upon a time, we also became so self-respecting?

In order to cooperate with the implementation of the Outline of the National Medium and Long-term Scientific and Technological Development Plan and cultivate top-notch innovative talents from all walks of life, the National Fund for Studying Abroad set up a national public graduate program in 2007. Every year, 5000 people are selected, with "seeking degrees" and "joint training" accounting for half. Although the selected subjects are mainly science and engineering, humanities and social sciences also account for 15%. This is of course a good thing, and I support it with both hands. Due to its special status, Peking University sends about 200 people every year. The Chinese department is very strong, and it can win eight or nine places every year.

But to be honest, as the head of the Chinese Department, I am very confused-I am proud of the competitiveness of our students, but I am also worried that this is "making wedding clothes for others." The Ministry of Education has a "part-time compensation method for doctoral students", that is, after sending students abroad to study for doctoral degrees, the relevant schools/departments can supplement the corresponding number of doctoral enrollment places. The problem is that there are only so many excellent students. Wouldn't it be a pity if they were all given away? After many consultations, the Ministry of Education promised to give special policies to Peking University and Tsinghua, and the ratio of 1: 1 was not blocked. Among the students sent, "joint training" is much higher than "studying for a degree".

I must consider the students' position and dare not write "non-study abroad" (19 14 1 month), saying that "study abroad policy is aimed at not studying abroad". Because I know very well that the country has sent a large number of overseas students, which has a far-reaching impact on the prospects of science, technology, education, academics and culture in China. But young Hu Shi's statement is not unreasonable: "The purpose of studying abroad is to create a new civilization for our country", so the key lies in how to run our universities well.

Let good students who are willing to study in good universities in China feel that they have great expectations.

More than 30 years after the publication of Non-study Abroad, the students studying in the United States at that time finally became the president of Peking University. President Hu, full of ambition and high spirits, lost no time in publishing the Ten-year Plan for Academic Independence (Central Daily, September 28th 1947): "When I say' academic independence', I must meet four conditions: 1. China should have its own university, which is fully responsible for the basic training of modern academic in the world, and there is no need to seek it from abroad. 2. Talents who have received basic training should have enough equipment and good teachers in China and can continue to do specialized scientific research. 3. China needs to solve scientific problems, such as industrial problems, medical and health problems, national defense industry problems, etc. There should be suitable professionals and research institutions in China to help social countries find solutions. For modern academic circles, domestic scholars and research institutions should cooperate with scholars and research institutions all over the world and shoulder the responsibility of human academic progress. "

Hu Shi's "Ten-year Plan" is divided into two parts: in the first five years, he made every effort to help Peking University, Tsinghua, Zhejiang University, Wuda University and Zhong Da University (Central University) become the best universities in China within a time limit and have a position in the world; In the second five years, I turned to support five other schools. Unfortunately, President Hu has no real power and is too "conscious". Naturally, he was strongly questioned by Chen of Nankai University, Beiyang University, Zou Lu, a veteran of the Kuomintang and founder of Sun Yat-sen University. More importantly, the national government is in a tight financial situation, and it is spending a lot of money to "suppress * * *", so it doesn't care about this at all.

After another half century, specifically, after 1998 celebrated the centenary of Peking University, the 985 plan was quickly launched and gradually implemented. Its basic idea was to concentrate on doing great things and run a number of famous universities well. Initially, it focused on supporting Peking University and Tsinghua to "strive for world-class universities"; In the next step, the central and local governments will establish Fudan University, Nanjing University, Zhejiang University, China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Xi Jiaotong University, Harbin Institute of Technology, etc., hoping that they will become "domestic first-class and world-famous high-level universities". Although the number of colleges and universities listed in the 985 Project has expanded to 39 in the future, the core part is 2+7; And this constitutes China's Ivy League-principals get together every year and take turns to discuss "the way of university".

People in China pay attention to perfection. Why not mention that there are only nine, not ten? This story is so dramatic that I don't need to say it (interested friends can refer to Chen Pingyuan's article "Interpretation of Contemporary China University").

Comparing the two, Hu Shi's "Ten-year Plan" is quite different from the 985 Project which was actually implemented half a century later. In Hu Shi's eyes, the key is to "strive for academic independence". Specifically, China University can train doctors of various majors by itself, and it is not necessary to study abroad: "Today, in order to promote independent scientific research, improve the dignity of university research, and reduce the social psychology of gilding abroad, it is necessary to revise the degree awarding law, so that qualified universities in China can undertake the responsibility of awarding doctoral degrees themselves."

On the surface, we have realized this dream, and now the number of doctors awarded by China University is the highest in the world every year-whether the quality is guaranteed or whether it is "over-exploited" is another matter. But in my opinion, Hu Shi's "ten-year plan" is still attractive. At present, China University is severely restricted by power, money and media, and the so-called "academic independence" still has a long way to go.

In the past, whenever someone criticized Peking University and Tsinghua as "preparatory schools for studying in the United States" and students went abroad after graduation, I would find such an excuse-Chinese department is different from major. Now, I dare not speak so bluntly. I can only hope that some good students will stay voluntarily and don't use Peking University as a springboard-sometimes they are even narrow-minded and like talented students whose English is not very good. I asked Japanese professors, will you also face this dilemma? The answer is: Our best students are in China; Of course, universities will also create conditions for them to go out for further study or study.

To tell the truth and keep good students, the following two conditions are indispensable: first, our university is very competitive; Second, foreign diplomas are not dominant when applying for teaching posts. Today's China University, most doctors from famous foreign universities don't want a high profile-no matter what major you study, the moon in foreign countries is rounder than in China.

If everyone idolizes "foreign diplomas" so blindly (I'm not talking about fake diplomas, I'm talking about real diplomas from famous foreign universities), in five years, 10 years, even China students will go abroad like fish crossing the river, which is really sad. Look at the advertisements for "leaders" or "professors" in universities in recent years, and you will understand that it is really difficult to "struggle" in China academic circles in the future if you don't study abroad and get a degree.

It is for this reason that I sigh: How to establish the "independence" and "self-confidence" of China University, so that good students who want to study in good universities in China feel that they have great expectations and are worth continuing. This is a big problem.